Dorota Ławecka
Early Dynastic "Oval" Temples in
Southern Mesopotamia
Światowit : rocznik poświęcony archeologii przeddziejowej i badaniom
pierwotnej kultury polskiej i słowiańskiej 9 (50)/A, 35-47
Do r o t a La w e c k a
Ea r l y Dy n a s t i c “ Ov a l” Te m p l e s in So u t h e r n M e s o p o t a m i a
T h ree sanctuaries surrounded by an oval perimeter wall and dating from tire Early Dynastic Period are known from Southern Mesopotamia.1 One (at Khafajah) is locat ed in die Diyala Valley, die remaining two have been dis covered at die southern sites of Al-Ubaid and Al-Hiba. Due to their general similarity, these structures are often seen and discussed as a single type or interpreted as the upshot of a common Mesopotamian tradition of religious architecture. In bodi case, emphasis is laid on the similari ties they all share.2 The present article’s aim is to present an analysis and comparison of these temples’ plans in order to establish what traits, if any, they had in common apart from the oval shape of their temenos.
Khafajah
In the 1930s, an American archaeological expedi tion from the Oriental Institute of Chicago worked at three sites in the Diyala region (Tell Asmar/Eshnunna, Khafajah/Tutub and Tell Agrab).3 Excavations at Khafajah, concentrated on the Oval Temple area, proved particularly difficult because of the poor state of preservation of build ings affected by erosion, and due to problems with tracing the brick bonding of walls preserved just beneath the tells surface.4 W ithin the temple, three main building phases were distinguished, the first two of which are of an Early Dynastic Period date (Fig. 1)2
' This article is based on an excerpt from the authors book (pub lished in Polish) “Northern Babylonia in the Early Dynastic Period” (Eaw ecka2010: 121-131).
2 See e.g. CRAWFORD 1977: 22, 25; 2004: 79-81; DelqugaZ
1940:140-145; Forest 1999:2 f.
3 The results of their work became the basis for the periodization of the Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia. However this peri odization has recently come under criticism, as far as the validity of the Early Dynastic II Period is concerned, not only in the broad context of Southern Mesopotamia, but also in the Diyala Valley, see e.g. EVANS 2007; GIBSON 2011; P О RAD A ET AL. 1992: 103, 107 f.
4 As H. Frankfort put it: / know o f no oth er site w hich illustrates
m o re strik in gly th e tru th th a t ex cavation in M esopotam ia, in contrast w ith that in oth er countries, consist in th e art not o f fin d in g
The spot, where the temple was erected, had been carefully prepared, with a large expenditure of work. The nearly oval temenos is enclosed with a double line of walls. A courtyard stretches between the two walls, near to the entrance into the sacred precinct; a house located there (called “House D”) is interpreted by P. Delougaz as tire dwelling of a priest. The surface of the courtyard raises ca. 0.7 m above the surrounding ground, so it is accessed via four stone steps. Still a bit higher (0.3 m) lies the surface oi an inner courtyard, which is encircled with rooms on three sidesf Two wells and numerous installations were discov ered in this courtyard (such as pools, podia and drains) that were probably used during rituals performed there. It may be surmised that the most important of the installations was a two-step altar abutting the lace of a mud-brick platform which occupies the south-eastern part of the courtyard.
The platform, decorated with recesses, and accessi ble through a perpendicular stairway set against its north eastern lace, measured approx. 25 by 30 m across. Judging by its published sections and a photograph which also show the two-stepped altar, 0.75 m high, abutting it, it can be assumed that the platform was no higher than 1 m at the time of discovery. In die second phase (Oval II) the plat form was heightened and slightly enlarged. Only its north ern part survived, widi its best-preserved fragment just about 0.3 m high. Despite this, the two structures could be
things b u t o f recogn iz in g them w hen th ey a re fo u n d (FRANKFORT
1933: 58).
5 In keeping with a periodization suggested by the discoverers
(Delougaz, Lloyd 1942: end plate; Lloyd 1987: 36) Oval I
was built in ED II; according to Porad a ET AL. (1992: 105),
where ED II is omitted, the construction of the temple should be
dated to the end of the ED I Period; see: EVANS 2007: 630. Oval II was erected in ED Ilia, while Oval III is dated to Early Akkadian
Period (Gibson1982: 537; Po r ad aetal. 1992:112 f.).
° DELOUGAZ 1940: 21-25, 68. The north-western part of the
courtyard could have been covered with a roof supported initial ly by mud-brick columns and, at a later stage, by pillars
(Bardeschi2008).
7 Delougaz1940:41, fig. 37, pis. 8,9; see also pis. VIII—IX: sect. 8 -8 -13 -1 3 ’.
Dorota Kawecka
distinguished from each other owing to a thin layer of pure sand which separated them and upon which some objects had been placed, most probably as foundation deposits for the reconstruction work (Delqugaz 1940: 65, 83-88).
At least a part of the city, including the Oval I tern - pie, was destroyed in a conflagration that might have been caused by an armed raid. The resultant layer of ashes stret ches under level X of the Sin Temple and under level 3 of houses in the area (Delougaz 1940: 139; 1942:123. pi. 8;
1967: 15). It is hard to tell how much time had elapsed before the Oval II temple was built, but it seems not to have been a long period. The floor levels of tire two building phases were near to each other. The plan of the younger building repeats not only the general outline of the older temple but also copies many of its details and the new walls were built on leveled stumps of the old ones. P. Delougaz is even of the opinion that some of the older structures in the témenos continued to be in use, without any rebuilding
(Delougaz1940; 75). O f an older phase ofthe stairs lead ing up the platform, just a single stone step was preserved. Based on its measurements and its distance from the edge of the platform P. Delougaz (1940: 69, fig. 39) calculated tire assumed original height of the platform to be 4 meters; its much lesser height upon discovery was put down to erosion. I have certain reservations towards this reconstruc tion, which was often repeated in later publications. I do not think it possible that in a relatively short period of time erosion should be able to destroy a three-metres-thick upper structure of a sizeable mud-brick construction. I think it similarly unlikely that the massif had been leveled out prior to the reconstruction.8 The estimation of J.D. Forest that the temple platform may have been ca. 10 m high is not founded on any concrete evidence and seems highly improbable."
On top of the platform, no traces of any structures - not even foundations - were found. Yet, a temple probably had. stood there, perhaps - as reconstructed by P. Delougaz - it was a rectangular building with a bent-axis entrance, typical of celias in sanctuaries from the Diyala region (Delougaz1940: 65-67).
s The examples from Kish (an Early Dynastic mud-brick massif surrounded with an Akkadian wall) and from Al-Ubaid (an erod ed platform walled with grey mud bricks) point to a logical procedure of using the partly destroyed massifs as the cores oi new structures rather than razing them to the ground.
Al-Ubaid
The other two sanctuaries with oval temenos were discovered in southern Sumer. One is a temple in Al-Ubaid. The sanctuary consists of a massif platform made of red mud bricks, upon which the temple building was erected, and the courtyard of die temenos encircled with an oval wall (Fig. 2). However, these two components of the archi tectural complex seem not to be contemporaneous. The temple platform and its immediate vicinity were the object of research by H.R. Hall and C.L. Woolley; the outer wall was probed by P, Delougaz during an extremely short exca vation campaign, lasting just four days.1“
In the temple precinct, four building phases can be distinguished, the first two of which are of relevance here. The temple platform was erected in the second phase. Although the platform is often put forward as a parallel for the Oval Temple at Khafajah, it differs quite strongly from the latter. Both were constructed of plano-convex mud bricks, but only the Al-Ubaid platform was faced, at least at three sides, with a baked brick wall resting on a stone foun dation. The Al-Ubaid platform’s oudine is less regular than the others. Its main part is almost square, with a small protrusion of baked bricks in the north-west, housing a drainage oudet. Another drainage installation was locat ed in the south-western corner of the building. Therefore, the platform had a system of drains that had no counterpart in die Khafajah building.
The platform could be entered from die south-east by a stairway of stone steps laid upon a mud brick ramp, which has been partly preserved (Fig. 3:a), From the south- -west, the main part of the structure was abutted by a small er, rectangular platform, made entirely o f mudbricks. Between the two structures, in the platform massif, there was another stairway with stone steps. However, the dif ferences between the tw'o sanctuaries go further than the details of construction of the platforms and stairways. The platforms’ localization within their respective temenos was also different: in Al-Ubaid the platform occupied its centre, whereas in Khafajah it was asymmetrically located in the far end of the courtyard,
■' ...les tem sses de K hafadje et d e Tell e l O beid d eva ien t a ttein d re
quelque dix mètres de h a u t p o u r a u ta n t que Ton puisse en ju ger...
(Forest f999: 3).
10 Hall, Woolley Í927; Delougaz1938; 1940:140-145; see
b
I
Second building period and later alterations ШфI stcuntl building [icrioii
b u t t r e s s e d i n n e r «val
b u t t r e s s e d o u t e r o v a l I ] o r i g i n a l b u i l d i n g M a d d i t i o n a l b H c k w t i r k Q _ _
Fig. 1. Khafajah, plans of two building levels of the Oval Temple: a - Oval I, the oldest phase; b - Oval II (after De lOUGAZ 1940: pis. Ill, VII).
Dorota Ławecka
If my suppositions concerning the Khafajah plat form are right, the two structures would also differ consid erably in height. C.L. Woolley remarked that the red brick massif was preserved up to the height of 3.5 m, whereas in the drawing of tire platforms section he published the massif is approximately 4 m high (Fig. 4).11 The top of the platform was heavily eroded, which attests to its long period of exposure to the elements prior to the subsequent building phase.1 Judging by die angle of ascent of the plat form stairs and of its drain, C.L. Wooley concluded that the platform may have been up to 6 m high (Woolley 1927c: 105 £). Even presuming the platform to have been approx. 4 m high, it will still have been noticeably higher than the platform in the Oval Temple at Khafajah.
Although no traces of any structure have been found at the top of die platform, its existence is strongly hinted at by features unearthed at the base of the platform, on both sides of the stairway ramp. They are both structural remains (columns, over 3 m long, and what may have been the remains of roof beams) and elements of architectural decoration (such as copper reliefs and a frieze with mosaic decoration). The temple on top of the platform must have been pulled down or destroyed. Some of its equipment may have been gathered at the bottom of the platform, then the walls were demolished and the debris pushed down. During excavations, many fragments of brick blocks were unearthed, still held together with mortar; fragments of the frieze were still clinging to some of them (HALL 1927: 2 8- 41; Woolley1927a: 65; 1927b). Among the small finds, die most important were inscribed artifacts: a foundation tablet of A-Ane-pada as well as two fragments of stone ves sels and a gold, bead with inscriptions mentioning the same rulers name. The inscription at the foundation tablet states that A-Ane-pada, the king of Ur, built a temple dedicated to the goddess Ninhursang. The same text had been engraved upon a copper figurine of a bull, which was found in the same area (Woolley 1927b: 77-80; Gadd 1927: 126 £; Frayne 2008: 296-398). These finds allow for a reasonably firm attribution of the structure, as far as both
11 Upon comparing Woolleys and Delougazs sections (Figs. 4 ,5 ), an important difference becomes clear. In Woolley’s section, Shulgis wall stands directly upon the red massif, whereas in Delougazs drawing, the two structures are separated by a layer of grey mud bricks, connected with a later reconstruction of the platform. Woolley (1927a: 63) writes that Shulgi s building was in part erected upon a structure made of grey mud bricks. At the same time, he keeps repeating die information of the earliest plat form measuring up to 3.5 m upon discovery (1927c: 105, 107), a statement, which is in my view the most plausible option.
its patron goddess and its builder are concerned. If we sur mise, as seems probable, that tire platform upon which this temple stood, had also been built in die times of A-Ane- pada, it would make die platform much younger than die first building level of die Oval Temple at Khafajah.
In the vicinity of die main stairway, beneath the level of the white-plastered floor dated to A-Ane-padas reign, C.L. Wooley discovered a mud brick ramp (Fig. 3:b). Upon discovery, die structure, which consisted of several layers of bricks and a limestone foundation, was of irregu lar shape (being 3.3 m long and from 1.4 to 2.5 m wide) and it was clearly slanting eastwards. Woolley interpreted die structure as a ramp used by the platforms builders and therefore no longer needed after the construction had been completed, which would explain why it was found beneath the floor level (WOOLLEY 1927a: 73 £).
The short excavations of P. Delougaz concentrated upon the témenos surrounding the platform (DELOUGAZ 1938). The research was facilitated by a line distinguishable on the surface due to a contrast between the color of bricks in the oval wall and the surrounding fill. Its outer face was probed in test trenches, which allowed for a convincing reconstruction of die perimeter walls outline. The structu res shape was almost circular and much more regular than in the other two “oval” temples. The walls inner face and its thickness was not localized for lack of time, and in the report it was stated that the oval structure was most proba bly die outer limit of an artificial mud brick terrace similar to the one supporting the Oval Temple at Khafajah
(Delougaz 1938: 4; 19 4 0 :1 4 0 ). In my opinion, this con clusion can be challenged.
P. Delougaz cleared two test trenches dug by earlier excavators near the south-eastern comer of die main plat forms massif (Fig. 2). In a sounding south-east of the façade, under die level which yielded the elements of temple para phernalia (a layer of stamped clay covered widi white plaster) floors from at least three earlier phases of occupa tion were encountered. Under the oldest one, there was a layer of sand (of unspecified diickness) which contained
12 WOOLLEY 1927a: 61; 1927c: 105. The diird building phase involved heightening and widening of the platform with grey mud bricks, contrasting from the earlier red bricks. A precise dat ing of this phase is not possible, yet it surely fits between the reign of A-Ane-pada, who probably erected the “red temple”, and Shulgis reign, since (as we know from inscriptions on bricks) the fourth phase was related to that kings building activities. In the sites publication, the numbering of building levels did not encompass the earliest vestiges (see below), the earliest temple having been incorporated into period I, and the later structures to periods II and III (WOOLLEY 1927a: 61-65).
Fig. 2. Al-Ubaid, plan of the temple platform in an oval enclosure (after De l o u g aZ 1940: fig. 125). Rye. 2. Al-Ubajd, plan platformy świątynnej otoczonej owalnym murem.
fragments of painted potsherds. In a published photo, the oldest floor can be seen about 1.5 m under tire floor related to die deposit of temple artifacts. These levels were at a depth upon which the terrace (if it existed) should have been (Delougaz1938: 5, pi. 111:2). No terrace was found in the other old test trench under die bottom of the plat form. However, P. Delougaz encountered there a fragment of a stone foundation of an earlier building, which differed from the platform in orientation. Another structure from an earlier phase of the building is die mud-brick ramp, mentioned above; unlike the stairway leading to the top of die platform, die ramp is located in axis with an entrance to the temenos discovered by P. Delougaz.
In die course of this work, a fragment of another wall parallel to the perimeter wall of the temenos was disco vered; it was approximately 1.5 m thick, pierced with a door way and had a buttress facing die platform. Because of the abundance of finds at die white surface related to the build ing of A-Ane-pada, the surface was cleared as far as over a dozen meters away from the buildings façade, but no wall enclosing the space was encountered (Woolley1927a: 59). P. Delougaz (1938: 5) writes implicidy diat die fragment of the inner wall with the buttress was located below the white- -plastered surface. This raises a question about the rela tionship between die oval walls and die platform. It is clear that - at least in the last phase of A-Ane-padas temple
Dorota Ławecka
Fig. 3. Al-Ubaid: a - platform with a partly preserved stairway, view from the south-east; b - slanting mud-brick ramp under the floor level corresponding to the stairway (HALL,
Woolley1927: pis. 22: bottom, 23: top). Rye. 3. Al-Ubajd, a - platforma z częściowo za chowanymi schodami, widok od południowego wschodu; b - pochyła rampa pod poziomem podłogowym, współczesnym schodom.
М П ...UVTl Μ ι · · _ .4 vv * Л \ \ \ Л \ X \ \ \ \ 4 4 4 4 X 4 Ñ V —--írt\\NNN\4¡ Г%\Ч\Ч\\\ \Ч \ • Ï J V> W \N4SN\S44\Ç*>- > . ‘ V i · 4 4 4 \ ν \ ν Í%4>\4V S\4NV white floor
baked bricks and
stone foundations
Sliulgi's wall
Fig. 4. Al-Ubaid, a schematic section o f the temple platform (after FOREST 1999:114, fig. 18; a clarified illustration from HALL, WOOLLEY
1927: pi. II).
Rye. 4. Al-Ubajd, schematyczny przekrój przez platformę świątyni.
red unbaked bricks baked bricks
gray unbaked bricks
oval inclosure
newly found walls
early foundations
2 0 ^ ^ ^ m
Fig. 5. Al-Ubaid, schematic section of the temple platform and the témenos (after DELOUGAZ 1940: 141, fig. 125).
Rye. 5. Al-Ubajd, schematyczny przekrój przez platformę świątyni i otaczający ją temenos.
- the inner wall did. not exist any more, as it lay below the level connected with the temples usage. A section pub lished by P. Delougaz (Fig, 5) shows that both walls were preserved to a similar height, below the level of the white floor on which temple furnishings had been found. Since the southern face of the outer wall is in line with mud brick ramp and a stone foundation of a building below the tem ple platform, it would thus seem likely that also this wall belonged to an earlier phase of the sanctuary. Based upon the available information, it is impossible to establish if it endured at all till the latest phase, but the roughly symmet rical location of the platform in the central part of the temenos speaks for the existence of a perimeter wall. Therefore, the sanctuary of A-Ane-pada (at least by the end of its existence) most probably consisted of a temple resting on a platform surrounded with a single oval enclosure wall.
O f the earlier structures very little is known and the few vestiges that have been discovered cannot be
soundly connected within a single framework, nor can they be dated. Judging by the very schematic section drawing, the inner oval wall is founded at a similar depth as the stone foundations discovered under the platform. The perimeter wall, probably massif, and - as it seems - built on a slope, may have been founded lower, or its foundations were laid in a trench. As mentioned above, the mud brick ramp is located opposite the entrance discovered by Delougaz. The stone foundations follow the same orientation as the ramp (east-west). Thus, it may be hypothesized that an earlier enclosure consisted of two parallel, oval walls and probably at least one building inside. Nothing of the very scarce information at our disposal points to the existence of a plat form in its courtyard at that time. Even if it existed, what might be proved or disproved only by the resumption of die excavations, it is clear from the trench dug into a brick massif, that it would not follow the oudine of the A-Ane- -pada structure.
Dorota Ławecka
Al-Hiba
Anodrer example of a temple with an oval temenos is the Ibgal, a temple of Inanna in die sacred precinct of E- anna in Al-Hiba (Lagash). Three levels were explored there, none of which was sufficiendy well preserved to allow for a reconstruction of die entire complex or even of its main structure (Fig. 6). The southern part has been completely lost to erosion. The two older levels were ad ditionally damaged by later building activities, while of the diird phase nothing but the foundations has survived. Numerous foundation deposits with En-anatums I inscrip tions found in diat level enabled a firm identification of die structure, which was erected by Ur-Nanshe, En-anatums I grandfather.13 On the outside, east of the oval wall, a test trench was dug in order to look for a hypothetical parallel oval wall (similar to that at Khafajah). No such structure was encountered (HANSEN 1970: 246).
The remains that have been preserved provide proof diat, apart from the oval oudine of the complex, its inner arrangement was quite different from diat of the tem ples at Khafajah and Al-Ubaid. In the oldest level III, die temple was probably erected on a ground level.14 In level II, a building of an irregular plan stood upon a low (compar ing with the level of die inner courtyard) platform. In die site’s publications, its precise height is not given, apart from a general remark that it was low (Hansen 1970: 248). In the youngest level I, En-anatum builders used the stumps of older walls; they were filled up with earth to create a surface upon which the foundations of a new structure were laid out (Fig. 6:c). The spaces between the older walls were pack ed with sand and lumps of clay and covered with a layer of bricks, forming a uniform surface. According to a publish ed section, the platform was approximately 1.5 m high.15 Yet, it must have been much lower, when measured from the level of the courtyard, as the latter’s top surface had also been considerably raised.1*’ In layer I, on die courtyard side, two clay steps with a rounded corner were pardy preserved by the eastern part of the platform (Hansen 1970; 245 £,
13 Hansen1992:206 f.; Cooper1986:49, La 4.4 (En-anatum I). The construction of Ibgal was mentioned in several inscriptions of Ur-Nanshe (ibid., 24-30). Two earlier layers (II and III) also probably date from the second half of the ED III Period (HANSEN
1980-1983: 425) but it remains unclear which of them should be linked with Ur-Nanshe’s building activity.
' The author did not mention any traces of a platform or a sub structure in the sounding below the floor of level III (HANSEN
1973: 67).
I IaNSEN 1970: 245, fig. 4. The technique ofbuiidingthe
foun-fig. 7). Judging by their appearance, there was no perpendi cular ramp leading to the top, but radier such low and wide steps round die whole circumference of the platform.
Another important difference is that - unlike at Khafajaf and Al-Ubaid - the platform supporting the tem ple building was not a freestanding structure but it abutted at least the western part of the oval wall. The cleared wall fragments have similar oudines diroughout all layers, so the multi-chamber buildings must have had similar plans. In laver III, the entrance part was preserved, complete widi three doorways (Fig. 6:a) and a part of a wall screening the entrance (an exceptional feature) which was decorated with two-step niches. Therefore, visitors to die sanctuary entered the building standing on the platform directly, and passing through it diey could step down into the northern courtyard. In the courtyards southern part, in a “recess” between the buildings’ walls in layer II, diere was a free standing podium of baked bricks with traces of numerous coats of plaster and in its northern part, there were some ovens (the podium, the top part of which has not survived, and the ovens are marked on the plan of layer II in Fig. 6:b).
In die same layer the south-western wall of the build ing is decorated with recesses, which suggests this is an outer face of the wall. If this also means that it faced anodier, southern courtyard, remains unclear; it is also plausible diat it is a wall of an inner courtyard, or that die platform sup ported more than one structure. As mentioned above, the structure consisted of many chambers, however its entire plan cannot be reconstructed in any of its phases and the loca tion and character of die temple celia is unknown. Of layer III only the entrance part was preserved; in layer II no pas sageways between different compounds (rooms A-F, G -J) or doors leading to the outside have been noticed. If it were not for the preserved traces of wall plaster and floors, one might think that these were the remains of the buildings’ foundations, as was the case with die earliest layer I.
At Al-Hiba the tradition of surrounding buildings with oval walls goes back at least to the beginnings of the Early Dynastic Period. In an area between the Ibgal and
dations is, in my view, the only relevant similarity between the Ibgal and the Oval lim p ie at Khafajah. However, one needs to bear in mind that an identical technique was used also for the terrace of the Sin Temple IV (ED I) which is much earlier (just as is the case with the Oval I Temple at Khafajah) than the Ibgal
( De l o u g a z 1 9 4 2 : 2 1 ) .
16 HANSEN 1973: 65, fig. 4 .1 am not quite certain, if the entire thick upper stratum of earth visible in tire picture over the floor of Temple II courtyard, which - judging by the scale - reaches 1 m in thick ness, represents a levelling layer beneadi the upper courtyard (I).
Fig. 6. Al-Hiba, plan of the Ibgal, layers: III (a), II (b), I (c) (after HANSEN 1973: figs. 1-3). Rye. 6. Al-Hiba, plan Ibgal, warstwy: III (a), II (b), I (c).
Dorota Ławecka
Fig. 7. Plan of a part of an oval building at Tell Madlihur, EDI Period (Roaf 1982: fig. 32).
Rye. 7. Plan części owalnego budynku z Tell Madhhur, okres wczesnodynastyczny I.
Bagara (the sanctuary of Ningirsu) a massif, curved wall was encountered, dating from the Early Dynastic I Period. Accordingto D.P. Hansen (1992: 2.10 F.), it may have been the perimeter wall of another sacred precinct, of which, so far, one building has been discovered that served some administrative and household purposes.
Round or oval building plans are also known from the north, especially from numerous sites in the Jebel Hamrin region and from sites in the lower Adhajm river region. However, the analogies do not stretch to the func tions of the buildings or to their internal organization.17 Closest to the conception used at Kahafajah, and perhaps also to that from Al-Ubaid, is a partly preserved complex
from Tell Madlihur (the Jebel Hamrin region, ED I), where an oval perimeter wall is abutted on die inside by rooms accessible from an inner courtyard (Roaf 1 9 8 2 :4 4 £; Heil
2011: 3 7 -3 9 ) (Fig. 7). At present, it is hard to tell if this
northern tradition is in any way connected with the plans of the oval temples discussed above. The oldest of these is the temple at Kahafajah, being slightly later than the above- mentioned oval wall from Al-Hiba and the structure from Tell Madhhur.
Even assuming that the builders of the Oval Temple at Khafajah had been inspired by the shape of the southern structures, it does not mean that the similarities needed to go further than the general outline of the temenos.
17 For a concise summary on structures with circular plans see: Crawford 2004: 92-96; Heil 2011; Miglus 2006-2008.
lsPoRADAET AL. 1992: 106. “Oval” temples in Early Dynastic peri
od are not restricted to the southern Mesopotamia, as proved by recent outstanding discoveries at Tell Mozan in the upper Khabur area. The general idea - the temple erected on the high terrace sur rounded by an oval perimeter wall - is similar to Al-Ubaid sanctu
ary, but again the layout of the enclosure is disparate (PFÀLZNER 2008; 2012: 173 f., 181-183). According to the results of the magnetic survey at Tell Chuera situated still further to the west, the temple in the centre of the city (“Steinbau VI”) was also en circled by the round or oval temenos wall (MEYER2007: 137). In this case the temple itself, built on the low stone platform, is a typ ical example of the western temple in antis (PFÄLZNER 2008: 180).
'Fhe examples presented above demonstrate that in each case the organization of the ovals’ inner space was dif-fer- ent, and that in none of the complexes the main temple building with a celia was preserved. Upon a closer study, I am inclined to think that die analogies are superficial and limited chiefly to the shape of the perimeter wall, which indeed in all cases follows a more or less oval outline. Nonetheless, the idea of a single, common plan for erecting such structures is not supported by the evidence, as each of die structures is distinguished by a separate set of impor tant features, which are absent in the other structures;
consequendy, die hypothesis of the existence of a standard model or architectural canon throughout the region is un founded. There is hardly any basis to talk of a characteristic type of a “Sumerian” sanctuary and of a coherent tradition spanning all of southern Mesopotamia.
Dr hab. Dorota Ławecka Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw dorotalawecka@uw.edu.pl
Bibliography
BardesciiiC.D.
2008 A propos des installations dans la cour du Temple O vale d e K hafajah, (in:) J. Córdoba et al. (eds.), P roceedings o f th e 5'1' In tern a tion a l Congress on th e A rchaeology o f th e A ncient N ear East, M adrid, A pril 3 - 8 2006, vol. 1,
Madrid, 253-272.
CooperJ.S.
1986 P resargon ic Inscriptions, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions I, New Haven.
Crawford H.E.W.
1977 A rchitecture o f Iraq in the T hird M illen ium B.C. M esopotam ia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 5,
Copenhagen.
2004 S um er a n d th e Sum erians, Cambridge.
DelougazP.
1938 A Short Investigation o f th e Temple a t Al-'Ubaid, “Iraq” V /l, 1 -9.
.1940 The Temple O val a t K hafajah, Oriental Institute Publications 53, Chicago.
1942 The K hafajah Temples, (in:) Delougaz, Lloyd1942,1-155.
1967 K hafajah, (in:) P. Delougaz, H.D. Hill, S. Lloyd, P rivate Houses a n d Graves in th e D iyala R egion, Oriental
Institute Publications 88, Chicago, 1-142.
DelougazP„ LloydS.
1942 P re-S argon id Temples in th e D iyala R egion, Oriental Institute Publications 58, Chicago.
EvansJ.M.
2007 The Square Temple at Tell A sm ar a n d th e C onstruction o f E arly D ynastic M esopotam ia, ca. 2900-2350 B.C.E., “American Journal of Archaeology” 111/4, 599-632.
ForestJ.-D.
1999 Les p r em iers tem ples d e M ésopotam ie (4e e t 3e m illén a ires), British Archaeological Reports. International
Series 765, Oxford.
Frankfort H.
1933 Tell Asmar, K hafaje a n d Khorsabad, S econd P relim inary R eport o f th e Iraq Expedition, Oriental Institute
Publications 16, Chicago.
FrayneD.R.
2008 P resargon ic P erio d (2700 2350), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 1, Toronto - Buffalo
- London.
GaddC.J.
Dorota Ławecka
Gibson McG.
1982 A R e-evaluation o f th e Akkad P eriod in th e D iyala R egion on th e Basis o f R ecen t Excavations a t N ippur a n d in th e H am rin, “American Journal of Archaeology ” 86, 531-538.
2011 The D iyala Sequence: F law ed a t B irth, (in:) P.A. Miglus, S. Mühl, B etw een th e Cultures. The C entral Tigris R egion fro m th e 3rd to th e 1st M illen n iu m BC. C on feren ce a t H eid elberg, J a n u a ry 22nd■ 24th, 2009, Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14, Heidelberg, 59-84, pis. VII-IX.
HallH.R.
1927 D escriptions o f Objects F ound: 1919, (in:) Hall, Woolley1927, 27-54.
HallH.R., WoolleyC.L.
1927 A l-‘Ubaid, Ur E xcavations I, Oxford.
Ha n se nD.P.
Al-Hiba, 1968-1969, A P relim in ary Report, „Artibus Asiae” 32, 243-250. Al-Hiba, 1970-1971: A P relim in ary R eport: „Artibus Asiae” 35, 62-70.
Lugas. B. A rchäologisch, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6,422-430. R oyal B u ild in g A ctivity a t Sum erian Lagash in th e Early D ynastic Period, “Biblical Archaeologist” 55/4,
206-211.
Early D ynastic R ou n d B uildings, (in:) P.A. Miglus, S. Mühl (eds.), B etw een th e Cultures. The C entral Tigris R egion fr o m th e 3rd to th e I я M illen n iu m BC. C onference a t H eidelberg, Ja n u a ry 22nd 24th, 2009,
Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14, Heidelberg, 37-45, pis. I, II.
A rcheology o f M esopotam ia. From th e O ld Stone Age to th e Persian Conquest, London.
Północna B abilonia w okresie w czesnodynastycznym , Warszawa.
Town P la n n in g in 3rd M illen nium Tell Chuera, (in:) J. Bretschneider, J. Driessen, K. Van Lerberghe (eds.), P ow er a n d A rchitecture. M on u m en ta l P ublic A rchitecture in th e B ronze Age N ear East a n d Aegean. P roceedings o f th e In tern ation al C onference P ow er a n d A rchitecture O rganized by th e K atholieke U niversität L euven, th e U niversité C atholique d e L ouvain a n d the W estfälische W ilhelm s-U niversität M ü nster on th e 21st a n d 22nd o f N ovem ber 2002, Orientaba Lovaniensia Analecta 156, Leuven - Paris - Dudley, MA, 129-142.
R undbau, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 450-460.
D as T em peloval von UrkeL B etrachtungen zu r T ypologie u n d E ntwicklungsgeschichte d e r m esopotam ischen Z iqqurat im 3.Jt. v. C hr, “Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie” 1, 396-433.
A rchitecture, (in:) M. Lebeau (cd.), A ssociated R egion a l C hronologies fo r th e A ncient N ear East a n d th e Eastern M editerranean. Jezirah, Turnhout, 131—194.
PoradaE. etal.
1992 E. Porada, D.P. Hansen, S. Dunham, S.H. Babcock, The C hronology o f M esopotam ia ca. 7000-1600 B.C., (in:) R.W. Ehrich (ed.), C hronologies in O ld W orld A rchaelogy, vol. 1, Chicago - London, 77-121.
Roaf M.
1982 T he H am rin Sites, (in:) J. Curtis (ed.), Fifty Years o f M esopotam ian D iscovery. The Work o f th e British S chool o f A rchaeology in Iraq 1932-1982, London, 40-47.
WoolleyC.L.
1927a The Work o f th e Season 1923-4, (in:) Hall, Woolley1927, 55-75. 1927b T he Objects fr o m th e Temple: 1923 4, (in:) Hall, Woolley1927,77-104. 1927c The R econstruction o f th e Temple, (in :) Hall, Woolley1927,105-123.
WoolleyC.L., MooreyP.R.S.
1982 Ur ‘o f t h e C haldees’. The F inal Account, Excavations a t Ur, R ev ised a n d U pdated by P.R.S. M oorey, London.
1970 1973 1980-1983 1992 Heil M . 2011 Ll o y dS. 1987 Ła w e c k a D. 2010 MeyerJ.-W. 2007 Miglus P.A. 2006-2008 PfAlzner P. 2008 2012
Do r o t a Ła w e c k a
WCZESNODYNASTYCZNE ŚWIĄTYNIE „OWALNE” W POŁUDNIOWEJ MEZOPOTAMII
Z
terenu południowej Mezopotamii znane są trzy wczesnodynastyczne sanktuaria otoczone owalnym murem obwodowym. Jedno z nich (Chafadża) znajduje się w pół nocnej Babilonii, dwa pozostałe odkryto na południu (Al- -Ubajd i Al-Hiba). Budowle te, ze względu na ogólne po dobieństwo, są często wydzielane i omawiane jako jeden typ lub interpretowane jako przejaw wspólnej mezopotam- skiej tradycji budownictwa sakralnego, a nacisk kładzie się na łączące je podobieństwa. W artykule autorka podjęła się weryfikacji tych poglądów poprzez analizę i porównanie planów tych założeń architektonicznych, w celu uzyskania odpowiedzi na pytanie, jakie cechy, poza kształtem teme- nosu zbliżonym do owalu, rzeczywiście łączą (lub różnią) wymienione powyżej okręgi świątynne.W każdym przypadku rozplanowanie przestrzeni wewnątrz owalu było inne, w żadnym zaś nie zachował się budynek świątyni. O ile odkryte w Al-Ubajd fragmenty kon strukcyjne (kolumny, belki stropowe) i elementy wystroju architektonicznego zdeponowane na terenie temenosu wska zują na istnienie budynku świątynnego, o tyle w Chafadży nie zachowały się żadne pozostałości zabudowy na plat formie. Porównanie wyglądu platform, na których zapewne
stały świątynie, pokazuje, że różnią się one zarówno wyso kością, kształtem, jak i sposobem konstrukcji. Jedynie wprzy- padku platformy w Al-Ubajd zastosowano system drenów odprowadzających wodę, nieobecny w innych założeniach. Inne jest usytuowanie platform w relacji do muru obwo dowego, a w najstarszej fazie funkcjonowania owalu w Al- -Hiba, znajdujący się wewnątrz budynek został wzniesiony na poziomie gruntu, bez żadnego podwyższenia. Inaczej za planowano także wejście na teren temenosu - w Chafadży i Al-Ubajd prowadziło ono na dziedziniec, w Al-Hiba - bezpośrednio do budynku.
Bliższa analiza tych założeń skłania do wniosku, że analogie są powierzchowne i sprowadzają się przede wszys tkim do kształtu otaczającego muru, który istotnie jest mniej lub bardziej zbliżony do owalu. Nie można jednak mówić o jednym, standardowym planie tego rodzaju budowli, po nieważ każda z nich wyróżnia się istotnymi elementami, nieobecnymi w pozostałych. Nie ma podstaw, by zakładać istnienie jednolitego wzorca czy też kanonu, obowiązujące go na tym terenie. Trudno więc twierdzić, że mamy do czy nienia z charakterystycznym typem „sumeryjskiego” sank tuarium i spójną tradycją obejmującą obszar całej Babilonii.
